Sun Oct 18, 2020, 01:34 PM

Goodheart (4,587 posts)

Let's say Congress passes a bill to expand the USSC, Biden signs it into law, then somebody sues.

The current Supreme Court decides to take the case.

What then?

29 replies, 1011 views

Thread info Bookmark this thread Trash this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

29 replies	Author	Time	Post
Let's say Congress passes a bill to expand the USSC, Biden signs it into law, then somebody sues. (Original post)	Goodheart	Oct 2020	OP
Nothing then.	PTWB	Oct 2020	#1
Exactly	maxrandb	Oct 2020	#20
Marbury v. Madison determined that the USSC can adjudge the constitutionality of any legislation.	Goodheart	Oct 2020	#2
Who would have standing?	Rstrstx	Oct 2020	#9
If they are true originalists they should overturn Marbury,	The Velveteen Ocelot	Oct 2020	#18
So true. But their hypocrisy exceeds their "originalism".	Goodheart	Oct 2020	#19
The Constitution does not determine the NUMBER of Justices.	ProudMNDemocrat	Oct 2020	#3
By the time the case gets to SCOTUS	EarlG	Oct 2020	#4
We can hope. :)	Goodheart	Oct 2020	#7
That I know, but it wouldn't be the first time that justices vote their biases over the Constitution	Goodheart	Oct 2020	#5
Then you start looking into impeaching justices for rank incompetence.	Salviati	Oct 2020	#6
Impeach them for false testimony in their confirmation hearings.	Under The Radar	Oct 2020	#17
It falls to Congress to pass the law that determines the way in which SCOTUS is comprised.	hlthe2b	Oct 2020	#8
Here's the point: the Supreme Court is the last word on constitutionality. AND	Goodheart	Oct 2020	#10
And Congress has the ability to impeach and remove. Check Mate	hlthe2b	Oct 2020	#11
Takes 67 Senators.	Goodheart	Oct 2020	#12
Read the rest of my post	hlthe2b	Oct 2020	#13
There is nothing unconstitutional about the expansion of the court	Sherman A1	Oct 2020	#14
FYI	Trumpocalypse	Oct 2020	#25
Nothing. Congress decides how many justices are on the court.	The Velveteen Ocelot	Oct 2020	#15
Already addressed. :)	Goodheart	Oct 2020	#16
Supreme Court Justices are Impeachable.	MineralMan	Oct 2020	#21
What if Nancy Pelosi were to murder trump and pence and then pardon herself?	Salviati	Oct 2020	#22
She would be a hero??	patricia92243	Oct 2020	#24
........	Blue_true	Oct 2020	#28
To sue the person would have to have standing to sue.	KWR65	Oct 2020	#23
Current court would uphold	RichardRay	Oct 2020	#26
The Supreme Court has no standing on that particular issue.	Blue_true	Oct 2020	#27
No, they can't.	Turin_C3PO	Oct 2020	#29

Response to Goodheart (Original post)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 01:36 PM

PTWB (4,131 posts)

1. Nothing then.

The size of the Supreme Court is determined by legislation.

Reply to this post

Response to PTWB (Reply #1)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 01:54 PM

maxrandb (13,821 posts)

20. Exactly

The Constitution limits what the Supreme Court can do. Folks seem to forget that the constitution also puts limits on the power of the judicial branch.

Weighing in on what congress does with the courts is not in their jurisdiction

Reply to this post

Response to Goodheart (Original post)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 01:37 PM

Goodheart (4,587 posts)

2. Marbury v. Madison determined that the USSC can adjudge the constitutionality of any legislation.

And it's quite possible that these rancid fucks would protect themselves.

Reply to this post

Response to Goodheart (Reply #2)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 01:41 PM

Rstrstx (1,317 posts)

9. Who would have standing?

Someone would have to show they have been adversely affected

Reply to this post

Response to Goodheart (Reply #2)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 01:50 PM

The Velveteen Ocelot (106,928 posts)

18. If they are true originalists they should overturn Marbury,

because nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the Supreme Court has the power of judicial review; C.J. Marshall held that they did because somebody had to do it and it might as well be them. But if that power wasn't given the Supreme Court by the Constitution, a true originalist would say they don't have it - thus pretty much putting the Justices out of work.

Reply to this post

Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #18)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 01:53 PM

Goodheart (4,587 posts)

19. So true. But their hypocrisy exceeds their "originalism".

Reply to this post

Response to Goodheart (Original post)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 01:38 PM

ProudMNDemocrat (13,615 posts)

3. The Constitution does not determine the NUMBER of Justices.

Allowed to make up the Supreme Court.

Reply to this post

Response to Goodheart (Original post)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 01:39 PM

EarlG (20,217 posts)

4. By the time the case gets to SCOTUS

Wouldn’t the new justices have already been seated, and therefore would also get to rule on the case?

Reply to this post

Response to EarlG (Reply #4)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 01:40 PM

Goodheart (4,587 posts)

7. We can hope. :)

Reply to this post

Response to Goodheart (Original post)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 01:39 PM

Goodheart (4,587 posts)

5. That I know, but it wouldn't be the first time that justices vote their biases over the Constitution

The Supreme Court decides constitutionality.

Reply to this post

Response to Goodheart (Original post)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 01:40 PM

Salviati (5,878 posts)

6. Then you start looking into impeaching justices for rank incompetence.

Reply to this post

Response to Salviati (Reply #6)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 01:49 PM

Under The Radar (3,373 posts)

17. Impeach them for false testimony in their confirmation hearings.

The last two, Kavanah and Barrett have nothing perjured themselves. Perhaps the threat of impeachment will force them to resign.

Reply to this post

Response to Goodheart (Original post)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 01:40 PM

hlthe2b (96,629 posts)

8. It falls to Congress to pass the law that determines the way in which SCOTUS is comprised.

The constitution lays that out. It would be hard to imagine an instance where SCOTUS would have the stated authority to weigh in. I suppose there could be some far out hypotheticals (e.g., restricting eligibility to one race), but these would be limited to areas where other areas of the constitution come into conflict (as in that example).

Reply to this post

Response to hlthe2b (Reply #8)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 01:43 PM

Goodheart (4,587 posts)

10. Here's the point: the Supreme Court is the last word on constitutionality. AND

After Barrett there are at least 5 biased fuckwads on that Court.

Reply to this post

Response to Goodheart (Reply #10)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 01:44 PM

hlthe2b (96,629 posts)

11. And Congress has the ability to impeach and remove. Check Mate

Anything at that level and beyond is civil strife level.

Reply to this post

Response to hlthe2b (Reply #11)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 01:44 PM

Goodheart (4,587 posts)

12. Takes 67 Senators.

Reply to this post

Response to Goodheart (Reply #12)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 01:45 PM

hlthe2b (96,629 posts)

13. Read the rest of my post

Reply to this post

Response to Goodheart (Original post)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 01:46 PM

Sherman A1 (38,958 posts)

14. There is nothing unconstitutional about the expansion of the court

Congress can decide the size of the court.

Reply to this post

Response to Sherman A1 (Reply #14)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 02:41 PM

Trumpocalypse (6,143 posts)

25. FYI

Reply to this post

Response to Goodheart (Original post)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 01:46 PM

The Velveteen Ocelot (106,928 posts)

15. Nothing. Congress decides how many justices are on the court.

There have been nine since the Judiciary Act of 1867, and again in 1948. The Constitution doesn't specify a number.

Reply to this post

Response to The Velveteen Ocelot (Reply #15)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 01:47 PM

Goodheart (4,587 posts)

16. Already addressed. :)

Reply to this post

Response to Goodheart (Original post)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 01:55 PM

MineralMan (144,999 posts)

21. Supreme Court Justices are Impeachable.

That is the check Congress has to balance the power of the SCOTUS.

The number of justices is controlled by Congress. That's in the Consitution. So, that's settled.

Reply to this post

Response to Goodheart (Original post)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 02:08 PM

Salviati (5,878 posts)

22. What if Nancy Pelosi were to murder trump and pence and then pardon herself?

What then?

Reply to this post

Response to Salviati (Reply #22)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 02:19 PM

patricia92243 (12,407 posts)

24. She would be a hero??

Reply to this post

Response to patricia92243 (Reply #24)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 03:27 PM

Blue_true (31,261 posts)

28. ........

Deserving of all the free Jenni’s ice cream that she can possibly eat. She said that Jenni’s is her favorite, coincidentally, it is my favorite also.

Reply to this post

Response to Goodheart (Original post)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 02:11 PM

KWR65 (1,098 posts)

23. To sue the person would have to have standing to sue.

Because the constitution does not set a maximum size of SCOTUS there is no violation of the law.

Reply to this post

Response to Goodheart (Original post)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 03:19 PM

RichardRay (2,611 posts)

26. Current court would uphold

The size of the court is *not* a Constitutional issue, it’s a matter of simple statute. Even with Barrett aboard. Recent and probable regressive decisions turn largely on the issues of precedent and claims of judicial activism. If a clean bill passed both houses of Congress and the President signed it there wouldn’t be much (or any) wiggle room.

Some folks may call that a naive view, but I’m not that far gone, yet.

Reply to this post

Response to Goodheart (Original post)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 03:22 PM

Blue_true (31,261 posts)

27. The Supreme Court has no standing on that particular issue.

Expanding the Federal Courts is solely within the domain of the Legislative and Executive branches. Joe can simply point out that the Supreme Court has no constitutional standing on that issue, so he will ignore any decision that it hands out.

Reply to this post

Response to Goodheart (Original post)

Sun Oct 18, 2020, 03:41 PM

Turin_C3PO (10,626 posts)

29. No, they can't.

The reasons why has already been explained.

Reply to this post

General Discussion (Forum)